2020
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.61893
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phenotypic diversity and genetic complexity of PAX3‐related Waardenburg syndrome

Abstract: Waardenburg syndrome subtypes 1 and 3 are caused by pathogenic variants in PAX3. We investigated 12 individuals from four unrelated families clinically diagnosed with Waardenburg syndrome type 1/3. Novel pathogenic variants identified in PAX3 included single nucleotide variants (c.166C>T, c.829C>T), a 2-base pair deletion (c.366_367delAA) and a multi-exonic deletion. Two novel variants, c.166C>T and c.829C>T and a previously reported variant, c.256A>T in PAX3 were evaluated for their nuclear localization and a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By targeted NGS, we identified candidate pathogenic variants in each of the multiplex, autosomal dominant families, including c.580G > A in EYA4 for Family A, c.1616+3A > T in EYA4 for Family B, c.991-15_991-13del in DFNA5 for Family C, and c.322-57_322-8del in PAX3 for Family D. Cosegregation of the variants and the disease phenotype were confirmed in all participating family members (Figure 1). The audiograms and associating features (the vestibular disorder) in Family C and the WS3-associated phenotype in Family D are consistent with previously reported genotype-phenotype correlation for the corresponding genes (Somashekar et al, 2020). In the two simplex families, compound heterozygous variants c.5426+1G > A and c.6087-3T > G in PTPRQ were identified in the proband of Family E and homozygous variant c.164+5G > A in USH1G in Family F. No other candidate variants in known deafness genes have been identified.…”
Section: Identification and Verification Of The Candidate Pathogenic Variantssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…By targeted NGS, we identified candidate pathogenic variants in each of the multiplex, autosomal dominant families, including c.580G > A in EYA4 for Family A, c.1616+3A > T in EYA4 for Family B, c.991-15_991-13del in DFNA5 for Family C, and c.322-57_322-8del in PAX3 for Family D. Cosegregation of the variants and the disease phenotype were confirmed in all participating family members (Figure 1). The audiograms and associating features (the vestibular disorder) in Family C and the WS3-associated phenotype in Family D are consistent with previously reported genotype-phenotype correlation for the corresponding genes (Somashekar et al, 2020). In the two simplex families, compound heterozygous variants c.5426+1G > A and c.6087-3T > G in PTPRQ were identified in the proband of Family E and homozygous variant c.164+5G > A in USH1G in Family F. No other candidate variants in known deafness genes have been identified.…”
Section: Identification and Verification Of The Candidate Pathogenic Variantssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…In two families (F3 and F4), though parents carried MGVs, only a single Mendelian disorder was observed in different individuals in the family. The details of F8, F9 and F10 were published previously [ 12 , 13 ]. Consanguinity was present in eight (8/14, 57.1%) of them.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was near absence of myelination in the proband, features indicating an insult to the early developing brain, starting from intra-uterine life itself. The timing coincides with activity of the neutral sphingomyelinases, particularly n-SMase3 whose function has been demonstrated to be its highest in the early stages of brain development [ 10 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 9 ] Exome based pairwise kinship analysis was performed to check for relatedness between the parents using KING.11 with kinship co-efficient cut-off of 0.0884. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) was on genomic DNA of the proband, clinically normal parents and two unrelated healthy controls as previously described [ 10 ]. Detailed methodology is provided in s supplementary section .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%